specifications error in Louisiana

1977In discussing the specifications of error, we will first determine whether the defendant must bear the "double burden" of proof in attempting to regain custody of her minor child as required by Decker v. Landry, 227 La. 603 , 80 So.2d 91 (1955), rehearing denied (1955).

1977In discussing the specifications of error, we will first determine whether the defendant must bear the "double burden" of proof in attempting to regain custody of her minor child as required by Decker v. Landry, 227 La. 603 , 80 So.2d 91 (1955), rehearing denied (1955).

2011Paz v. BG Real Estate Services, Inc., 2005-0115, p. 1 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/14/05), 921 So.2d 186, 187 .

2009In these Exceptions, the State Defendants contend that the class action should be dismissed with prejudice on the basis that Plaintiffs have no cause or right of action against them since Act 35 was held to be constitutional by the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal in United Teachers of New Orleans v. State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, 07-0031 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/26/08) , 985 So.2d 184 , 192 and that Plaintiffs have no other viable claims against Rthem that survive after United Teachers and Triplett, et al. v. Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, 09-0691 (La.App. 1

2009In these Exceptions, the State Defendants contend that the class action should be dismissed with prejudice on the basis that Plaintiffs have no cause or right of action against them since Act 35 was held to be constitutional by the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeal in United Teachers of New Orleans v. State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, 07-0031 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/26/08) , 985 So.2d 184 , 192 and that Plaintiffs have no other viable claims against Rthem that survive after United Teachers and Triplett, et al. v. Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, 09-0691 (La.App. 1

1995The Trial Court erred in its finding that the defendant was plaintiff's statutory employer under the analysis of Berry v. Holston Well Service, Inc., 488 So.2d 934 (La.1986). 2.

1989State v. Wright, 445 So.2d 1198 (La.1984); State v. Hahn, 526 So.2d 260 (La.App. 2d Cir.1988), writ denied, 532 So.2d 150 (La.1988).

1989State v. Wright, 445 So.2d 1198 (La.1984); State v. Hahn, 526 So.2d 260 (La.App. 2d Cir.1988), writ denied, 532 So.2d 150 (La.1988).

1989State v. Wright, 445 So.2d 1198 (La.1984); State v. Hahn, 526 So.2d 260 (La.App. 2d Cir.1988), writ denied, 532 So.2d 150 (La.1988).

1988State v. Williams, 338 So.2d 672 (La.1976); State v. Domingue, 298 So.2d 723 (La.1974).

1988State v. Williams, 338 So.2d 672 (La.1976); State v. Domingue, 298 So.2d 723 (La.1974).

1986On appeal, plaintiffs raise the following specifications of error: “(1) Does the sale of a partnership interest encompass a substitution of partners under Louisiana law? (2) Do the provisions of the partnership agreement in this case negate the rule of Civil Code Article 2807 that unanimous consent is required to permit a partner to withdraw without cause prior to expiration of the term, to admit a new partner, or to amend the partnership agreement? (3) May the partners waive by majority vote the 60-day period in the partnership agreement within which to buy a selling partner’s interest? (4) I

1984This court in Carollo v. Shoney's Big Boy Enterprises, 433 So.2d 803 (La.App. 5th Cir.1983), adopted the law as to slip and fall accidents as summarized in Smith v. Winn Dixie Stores of Louisiana, Inc., 389 So.2d 900 (La.App. 4th Cir.1980) at page 901: "The jurisprudence reflects the view that upon proof that a foreign substance was on the floor at the time the plaintiff entered the store; that the plaintiff stepped on this foreign substance; and that it caused her to slip, fall, and suffer injury, the burden shifts to the defendant to go forward with the evidence to exculpate itself from the

1984This court in Carollo v. Shoney's Big Boy Enterprises, 433 So.2d 803 (La.App. 5th Cir.1983), adopted the law as to slip and fall accidents as summarized in Smith v. Winn Dixie Stores of Louisiana, Inc., 389 So.2d 900 (La.App. 4th Cir.1980) at page 901: "The jurisprudence reflects the view that upon proof that a foreign substance was on the floor at the time the plaintiff entered the store; that the plaintiff stepped on this foreign substance; and that it caused her to slip, fall, and suffer injury, the burden shifts to the defendant to go forward with the evidence to exculpate itself from the

1979There is no longer any question that the post-separation adultery on the part of defendant does not relieve plaintiff of establishing she was free of pre-separation fault in view of the decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court in Bruner v. Bruner, 364 So.2d 1015 (La.1978).

1979Young v. Squeeze Tools, Inc., supra. Since we find no merit to the various specifications of error assigned by Messina, we conclude that the trial court correctly recognized American Bank’s chattel mortgage and found it to be superior to Messi-na’s judicial mortgage as to the various pieces of equipment properly identified by serial number in the mortgage instrument.

1978Lumber Products, Inc. v. Crochet, 244 La. 1060 , 156 So.2d 438 .” Pringle Associated Mortgage Corporation v. Eanes, 208 So.2d 346 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1968).

1978Lumber Products, Inc. v. Crochet, 244 La. 1060 , 156 So.2d 438 .” Pringle Associated Mortgage Corporation v. Eanes, 208 So.2d 346 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1968).

1978The defendants/appellants urge the following specifications of error on the part of the trial court: "(1) Entering summary judgment, in the amount, proportion and extent found, without regard to the issues of fact presented in opposition to the motion and the real defenses specially pleaded by defendants; "(2) Prematurely entering summary judgment on the main demand when the issues presented by the answer and reconventional demands would reduce or defeat the main demand; "(3) Refusing oral deposition discovery which could reasonably lead to the discovery of relevant facts essential to the defe

1978Lumber Products, Inc. v. Crochet, 244 La. 1060 , 156 So.2d 438 .” Pringle Associated Mortgage Corporation v. Eanes, 208 So.2d 346 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1968).

1976As to the specifications of error concerning the Trial Judge’s instructions to the jury and his refusing to submit the action to the jury on a general verdict form, we are of the opinion that in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision of Gonzales v. Xerox Corporation, La., 320 So.2d 163 (1975) there is no need for us to determine whether the Trial Judge was in error or not.

1976Even if we would find the Trial Judge in error, under the holding of Gonzales, supra, rather than remanding for a new trial, we are compelled to render a decision.

1976Messner v. Messner, 240 La. 252 , 122 So.2d 90 (1960) ; Salley v. Salley, 238 La. 691 , 116 So.2d 296 (1959); Decker v. Landry, 227 La. 603, 80 So.2d 91 (1955) ; Guillory v. Guillory, 221 La. 374 , 59 So.2d 424 (1952).” In answering the specifications of error, we find that the Trial Judge was well within the rules and principles of law as set down in Fulco v. Fulco, supra, and exercised wisely the great discretion granted him.

1976Messner v. Messner, 240 La. 252 , 122 So.2d 90 (1960) ; Salley v. Salley, 238 La. 691 , 116 So.2d 296 (1959); Decker v. Landry, 227 La. 603, 80 So.2d 91 (1955) ; Guillory v. Guillory, 221 La. 374 , 59 So.2d 424 (1952).” In answering the specifications of error, we find that the Trial Judge was well within the rules and principles of law as set down in Fulco v. Fulco, supra, and exercised wisely the great discretion granted him.

1976Messner v. Messner, 240 La. 252 , 122 So.2d 90 (1960) ; Salley v. Salley, 238 La. 691 , 116 So.2d 296 (1959); Decker v. Landry, 227 La. 603, 80 So.2d 91 (1955) ; Guillory v. Guillory, 221 La. 374 , 59 So.2d 424 (1952).” In answering the specifications of error, we find that the Trial Judge was well within the rules and principles of law as set down in Fulco v. Fulco, supra, and exercised wisely the great discretion granted him.

1976Messner v. Messner, 240 La. 252 , 122 So.2d 90 (1960) ; Salley v. Salley, 238 La. 691 , 116 So.2d 296 (1959); Decker v. Landry, 227 La. 603, 80 So.2d 91 (1955) ; Guillory v. Guillory, 221 La. 374 , 59 So.2d 424 (1952).” In answering the specifications of error, we find that the Trial Judge was well within the rules and principles of law as set down in Fulco v. Fulco, supra, and exercised wisely the great discretion granted him.

1976Messner v. Messner, 240 La. 252 , 122 So.2d 90 (1960) ; Salley v. Salley, 238 La. 691 , 116 So.2d 296 (1959); Decker v. Landry, 227 La. 603, 80 So.2d 91 (1955) ; Guillory v. Guillory, 221 La. 374 , 59 So.2d 424 (1952).” In answering the specifications of error, we find that the Trial Judge was well within the rules and principles of law as set down in Fulco v. Fulco, supra, and exercised wisely the great discretion granted him.

1976Messner v. Messner, 240 La. 252 , 122 So.2d 90 (1960) ; Salley v. Salley, 238 La. 691 , 116 So.2d 296 (1959); Decker v. Landry, 227 La. 603, 80 So.2d 91 (1955) ; Guillory v. Guillory, 221 La. 374 , 59 So.2d 424 (1952).” In answering the specifications of error, we find that the Trial Judge was well within the rules and principles of law as set down in Fulco v. Fulco, supra, and exercised wisely the great discretion granted him.

1975Gremillion v. O'Hara, 252 La. 540 , 211 So.2d 641 (1968), did censure the respondent judge under Arts. 9 and 5 of the 1921 Constitution as it existed prior to 1968.

1975Gremillion v. O'Hara, 252 La. 540 , 211 So.2d 641 (1968), did censure the respondent judge under Arts. 9 and 5 of the 1921 Constitution as it existed prior to 1968.

1975Callahan v. Town of Bunkie, supra. The remaining specifications of error deal with the jury's verdict and the questions of quantum.

1974Hidalgo v. Thomas, supra. Having considered the jury verdict to have been fully supported by the law and the evidence adduced, we now turn to the other specifications of error asserted by the Town of Bunkie.

1972Franz v. Franz, 230 So.2d 450 , La.App. (4th Cir. 1970); Bowlin v. Bowlin, 222 So.2d 637 , La.App. (2d Cir. 1969).

1972Franz v. Franz, 230 So.2d 450 , La.App. (4th Cir. 1970); Bowlin v. Bowlin, 222 So.2d 637 , La.App. (2d Cir. 1969).

1966State, 186 La. 784 , 173 So. 315 . (1936)” Basically the application of these two cases cited in the specifications of error has to be determined by the condition of the land in dispute at the time of the issuance of the patent in 1883.

1966State, 186 La. 784 , 173 So. 315 . (1936)” Basically the application of these two cases cited in the specifications of error has to be determined by the condition of the land in dispute at the time of the issuance of the patent in 1883.